Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC's order and restored the execution court's position, holding that the arbitral award-drafted in conformity with the parties' MoU-did not grant compound interest and accordingly cannot be supplemented at execution. Under s.31(7)(a)/(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, party autonomy governs interest from cause of action to award date and the tribunal's discretion under clause (a) exists only in the absence of contrary agreement; clause (b) is contingent on an award. Because the tribunal awarded interest only until repayment and the MoU did not provide for compounding, the respondent's claim for compound interest in execution was rejected.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC's order and restored the execution court's position, holding that the arbitral award-drafted in conformity with the parties' MoU-did not grant compound interest and accordingly cannot be supplemented at execution. Under s.31(7)(a)/(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, party autonomy governs interest from cause of action to award date and the tribunal's discretion under clause (a) exists only in the absence of contrary agreement; clause (b) is contingent on an award. Because the tribunal awarded interest only until repayment and the MoU did not provide for compounding, the respondent's claim for compound interest in execution was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
